Anyone getting the 58mm 0.95?

If I should ever discover that my hobby is photographing eye lashes where half the eye lash is sharp and the other half out-of-focus, then I simply need that lens ;)
 
I've been down the f.95 road before and I feel no need to go down that road again. Frankly, the more I dabble with the 50mm f3.5, and 50mm f2 lenses, as well as the ZM 85mm f4 lens, the more I question the need for these ultra fast 0.95 lenses. I find for my artistic journey, character, uniqueness, rendering quality, things that bring joy to the process of creating images are more important (to me) than high speed where the tip of a nose is in focus and the eyes are a total blur. But, whatever, each their own. Did they say that Noct 58mm f.95 was $6000?

Lovin, life,
Mike
 
No.

Ignoring the fact that I don't have a Nikon Z (maybe one day?), and ignoring the fact that I can't afford $6k for a lens, I'm just not that into the modern trend of gigantic normal primes...

Zeiss Otus 55/f1.4 - 970g
Sigma 50/f1.4 Art - 815g
Pentax D-FA* 50/f1.4 - 910g
Tokina Opera 50/f1.4 - 950g
Sony Planar T* 50/f1.4 - 778g
 
My fastest lens is a 1.4 and even that one never gets used close to wide open. I'm not that kind of photographer.

I think the f0.95 lenses are probably aimed at video shooters.
 
Why would anybody actually need to buy such a lens? In my case, I do not need this lens even I had the cash ready be spent like that.
 
raid said:
Why would anybody actually need to buy such a lens? In my case, I do not need this lens even I had the cash ready be spent like that.
Click to expand...

Because the stars aren't getting any brighter?

We do know this is not a (primarily) portrait lens?

(And, no, I won't be getting 58/0.95. It wouldn't fit in my car.)
 
Not sure why everyone is fixated on eyelashes, that is what macro lenses are for..

I see this as a great way to shoot full length portraits with the 50/58mm perspective while providing isolation from the surroundings.

I'm curious as to why it is not an AF lens. After all it is in the Z mount, which only has AF bodies (so it's not like you can use it on an F3), and the Z bodies now have excellent AF (especially after the 1.02 firmware update which was released 2 days ago). They are fantastic MF bodies, but if this lens was an AF it would be so more appealing for many.

Still diggin' the concept. And half the price of a Noctilux but gets to play with a modern sensor.
 
Huss said:
Not sure why everyone is fixated on eyelashes, that is what macro lenses are for..

I see this as a great way to shoot full length portraits with the 50/58mm perspective while providing isolation from the surroundings.

Still diggin' the concept. And half the price of a Noctilux but gets to play with a modern sensor.
Click to expand...

That’s what I thought. My feeling was it might be one of those lenses which, in and of itself, was enough reason to buy a certain camera body.
Obviously not the consensus view here, but, when the “What's the Best UNDER $50 Ebay Rangefinder?” thread here is 8 pages long, maybe I should not have been surprised :)

Is it “too big”? I don’t know. Anybody else make a f/0.95 58mm that performs as well, and is smaller? We’ll have to wait and see. If it turns out there is nothing else like it that’s smaller, then it’s not “too big”, though it might be bigger than some people want to use. But those are two separate things.
 
The ergonomics of the lens look terrible:
The focus ring is far away from the body and the ring so deep that there is no hand rest area other than the tripod mount L . With all that weight up from its going to be tough to hold and focus without the combo mounted on a movie rig.
 
FrozenInTime said:
The ergonomics of the lens look terrible:
The focus ring is far away from the body and the ring so deep that there is no hand rest area other than the tripod mount L . With all that weight up from its going to be tough to hold and focus without the combo mounted on a movie rig.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that tripod mount suggests Nikon's intention. I think it would be great with a monopod. In fact it would be necessary as then the left hand focuses while the right hand operates the shutter button.

This is obviously a specialized piece and should be viewed that way. It is not designed as a lightweight, walk around, compact, hand-holdable item.
if you want a lens like that, there are plenty out there.
 
css9450 said:
I think the f0.95 lenses are probably aimed at video shooters.
Click to expand...

That is also what I think, the lack of resolution of the old Canon 0.95 [designed for video camera's?] matched video very well because of the inherent low res of film - you don't notice in the flow of frames, but you enjoy the uncluttered background.
I am already happy with my Jupiter-3 that at 1.4 has more wiped out backgrounds than the Canon 1.4 LTM.
 
Huss said:
, and the Z bodies now have excellent AF (especially after the 1.02 firmware update which was released 2 days ago).
Click to expand...

Interesting, because better AF-Performance was not mentioned by Nikon in the FW-desription and I'm quite confident they would if they improved the AF.

Regarding the initial question, no interest in this lens. Instead I would use my 50/1.2 AI-S with adapter. Love the f1.2 for environmental full body portraits, but shoot other stuff mostly at f2-f2.8 where imho this lens shines like no other 50mm lens from Nikon. This was the initial reason to buy it, not the f1.2 possibility.

Juergen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom